11:30 Simcha Rochman - "There is no other court that can challenge govt (legislation) decisions without the need for standing" Yes, there are other supreme courts that have the power to initiate review proceedings on their own. For example, the Constitutional Court of Germany (Bundesverfassungsgericht) has the power to review the constitutionality of laws on its own initiative, without waiting for a specific case to be brought before it. This power is derived from the German Constitution, which gives the court the authority to ensure that the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution are protected. Similarly, the Constitutional Court of Turkey (Anayasa Mahkemesi) has the power to initiate review proceedings on its own initiative, as well as the power to review the constitutionality of laws that are passed by the Turkish parliament. This power is also derived from the Turkish Constitution, which establishes the court as the highest authority on matters of constitutional law. So this isn't quite true and it's important to keep perspective. Initiating constitutional review without standing isn't universally practiced but that doesn't make it unique to Israel.
Israel should never take an example from Germany and Turkey is a joke where Erdogan has full control of the judiciary with his appointments so no judge will ever dare to challenge laws that Erdogan supports. US, UK, Canada, Australia, France, Italy, Spain, and others are many more countries where the court cannot or is very restricted in what it can do with regard to elected representatives passed laws.
7:55 The legislator actually gave power to the court, when it legislated that no law shall contradict the Basic Law: Human Dignitiy and Freedom. So when a law contradicts it, it must be cancelled, and the only authority who can decide if a law applies, is the judiciary.
As a Canadian, it puzzles me that you were unable to find an Israeli to argue against an elected Israeli MK. What right does any American, Jew or not, have to go on about Israeli politics - other than the usual American arrogance that makes them imagine that they know more than others and deserve to spout about a country of which they do not seem to be a citizen. And BTW what real moderator argues with a speaker?
Yaniv Roznai is Israeli. Not sure who you are referring to here. But, as an aside, I think discounting the opinion of foreign individuals (let alone experts) on the basis of their nationality is an incredibly dumb position to take. To discredit any idea or position on any basis other than its merits is merely an intellectually dishonest attempt at insulating one’s own position from criticism. Why is a criticism acceptable if it comes from the mouth of an Israeli but immediately invalidated if it were to come from an American? We live in the age of the internet, my friend. Knowledge is no longer tethered to locale.
49:42 "I have not authorized Simcha Rothman" But Professor Roznai isn't the only citizen of Israel. MK Rothman was authorized by the representatives of half the Israeli population. 49:52 "fundamental pillars" But who determines these fundamental pillars? Not the Supreme Court, whose values inevitably reflect those of the narrow demographic from which they are drawn -- Jewish, Ashkenazi, secular, progressive, politically left-wing? Those fundamental pillars must also come from and be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of Israelis. 54:45 This emphasizes MK Rothman's point; the Basic Law was amended based on public pressure. Admittedly, Basic Laws must have some additional proceedings around them if they are to be viewed as fundamental. But that discussion can only happen without the stifling control the Supreme Court currently has on the Knesset.
9:00 This is a really amazing clain. That the rising housing prices are to blame on the court, and not on the impotence of the right-wing governments. I have yet to see the reasoning for this ridiculus claim.
Israel have no constitution... That is why juridical power is to strong. Constitution should include balance of power and law makers should be free to make new laws and regulations without interference of juridical system that should execute laws and do not create them. Supreme court's if given to much power becoming to be real governors while politically democratically elected law makers are under supreme court total control. This is juridical authoritarian political system not a democratic anymore. Unless judges are elected by citizens of that country in general election. Judicial supremacy is in deed regime that is not democratic. It is totalitarian power held by a few judges. There is a strong bias coming from those judges personal political ideological believes. It is extremely dangerous.
If governments can pass laws with no judicial interference whatsoever (as will result from the "reforms") then there is no rule of law. There is authoritarian mob rule over everyone else. The fact that Israel has no formal constitution and no other checks and balances means that the supreme court is the only body able to ensure liberal democracy
The argument that judges should be elected in general elections is problematic. Elections can be influenced by political ideologies, campaign donations, and other factors that may compromise the impartiality of judges. Appointing judges based on their qualifications and experience, as is done in many democratic countries, helps ensure that judges are independent and impartial in their decision-making. The suggestion that the Supreme Court is becoming a "real governor" and that democratically elected lawmakers are under its total control is simply not accurate. The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law and ensure that the actions of the government are in accordance with the law. While the Supreme Court does have the power to strike down laws that are deemed unconstitutional, this does not give them total control over the legislature. Rather, it serves as a necessary check on the potential abuses of power by other branches of government. Creating a constitution is the best solution to this problem and can provide a framework for balancing the powers of different branches of power and preventing a crisis, while appointing judges based on qualifications and experience helps ensure that they remain independent and impartial. The Supreme Court serves as a necessary check on the government and helps maintain the balance of power in a democratic system.
Israel HAD free economy. until these semi fascists slithered back into power. Bibi was not the only one securing the growth during 'his' previous cadences, and mind you the marks he set were not even matched
Simcha Rochman at 26:40 "Getting a coalition is very very hard because you have to defend minority rights" If you're interested in defense of minority rights why are you so hellbent on stripping power from one of the only institutions that has traditionally defended them? From 1992 the Israeli Supreme Court struck down 22 laws on the basis of their violating "Human Rights and Dignity" and the task of preserving those rights and dignities was mandated for the court by the Knesset in 1992. The common refrain from critics is that the courts behavior in these matters constitutes "judicial activism" because there are no litigants to bring forth actual standing. But let's consider the cases it reviews. Of the 22 laws the Knesset overturned on this basis (out of the 4000 laws it did not overturn in this period from 1992 to 2023) here are some good examples: In 2004, the Supreme Court struck down a law that authorized the use of "moderate physical pressure" in interrogations of security detainees. The court ruled that the law violated the principle of human dignity. In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down a law that allowed for the detention of illegal immigrants for up to three years without trial. The court ruled that the law violated the principle of human dignity and the right to liberty. In 2016, the Supreme Court struck down a law that required the government to detain asylum seekers in a special detention center for at least one year. The court ruled that the law violated the principle of human dignity and the right to liberty. In 1999, the Supreme Court struck down a law that allowed for the administrative detention of Israeli citizens suspected of security offenses for up to six months without trial. The court ruled that the law violated the right to due process and the right to liberty enshrined in the Basic Law. In 2006, the Supreme Court struck down a law that allowed for the detention of Palestinian family members of suspects for the purpose of exerting pressure on the suspects to turn themselves in. The court ruled that the law violated the principle of human dignity. In 2011, the Supreme Court struck down a law that allowed for the detention of asylum seekers who entered Israel without proper documentation for up to three years without trial. The court ruled that the law violated the principle of human dignity and the right to liberty. In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down a law that allowed for the detention of African asylum seekers for an extended period of time without trial. The court ruled that the law violated the principle of human dignity and the right to liberty. There are many many more such cases but amongst many of them a common factor is that is that people being illegally detained often lack the means and wherewithal for legal recourse. Israel is a better country for having democratically endowed it's court with this power and the people who are trying to strip the court of this power are interested in reforms that allow for indefinite detention, annexation, racist laws and torture. These are just some of the menu options that Netanyahu is trying to open up for his coalition.
I’ve been trying to find where I can see what things the court has ruled on. Can you give me a link or source? Not challenging you. Just trying to find it for my own understanding. I keep hearing all these people say how authoritarian and activist this court is. But when I ask for proof I never get a word except the examples you’ve given here.
Mr Rothman, please dont try to make cherry-picked comparisons to Sweden, who has one of the worlds strongest democratic constitutuons and systems to protect it, while Israel has basically nothing to protect its nation and against un-democratic changes exept the Supreme court. If You want to change a constitutional law in Sweden this is the procedure : First of all the ruling party has to precent the suggestion in parliment. and to win the vote in the parliment. Then it has to be elections before the suggestion can be presented in parliment again for the second vote.
12:00 Rotman keeps saying "like no other country in the world", while some elements do exist in some countries in the world. Besides, if a legal element is unique, it doesn't make it wrong. It's natural that countries adapt their laws to their own needs.
11:00 Rotmat repeats the lie that the judges appoint themselves. The truth is both politicians and judges can veto a candidate, so both sides have to agree on candidates.
my impression is that the judiciary in Israel that really needs reform, if not full disbandment, if the religious one. the one that doesn't let people marry, forcing many to go register marriages in like Cyprus and the like, doesn't let people convert, doesn't let people be buried next to their brothers in arms, the ones that somehow think they are the only legit entity in Jewish religion--those are the ones needing kick in the tuches
26:45 or so... "In the US, of you are a Rebublican in New York or a Democrat in Alabama, please don't go to vote because your vote just won't count". Hmmm. Ya never know. Just because one is in a blue (or red) state doesn't mean that everyone in the state votes accordingly.
From the moment "Yaniv Roznai" presented his view, "Simcha Rothman" was occupied with an important tweet, message, ... . No interest at all in Yaniv's approach/view at all. It was pure arrogance with a silent message in one word "Power". In context of upcoming "Pesach" Who is Simcha Rothman ??? .... "the wise, the wicked , the simple or the one who can't ask"? My approach is "the one who can't listen also can't ask".
right, you smith the iron while its hot, start the most controversial piece of your agenda first, because it guarantees you powergrab, provoke unrest--and then put the blame on the opposition.
12:30 Rotman actually suggests that the court will not criticize the parliament, and every branch live in its own silo. That's not how democracies work.
striking down 5 laws out of 22 that were against 'illegal infiltrators'? that's the Arab folk who lived in the Israeli territory before establishment of the State, if i get it right, isn't that?
@@amirban I don't I know there are West Africans, even some Caribbean folk and people from like US "True Israelites" whose status has been disputed. And in any case I don't see this as a reason to undermine judicial independence, if anything these people can contribute to balancing out Arab and Muslim populations demographically
@@spikeyapples No those people haven't come to Israel in any significant numbers. The people Rothman talks about are from east Africa, mostly Sudan and Eritrea, and fled due to Humanitarian reasons (The right claim sometimes: to seek jobs, and their come just coincided with the same Humanitarian crises, I assume)
In a democracy you always have the checks & balances against them of being able to vote them out if they end up doing something that's the opposite of what they campaigned on and do it without public support.
Wow, amazing, thank you to Tikvah Fund and J.J. for an open discussion.
Thank you for this discussion
Thank Gd for Simcha Rotman
Thank you for an excellent discussion with two intelligent and very knowledgeable speakers.
12:30 While some of the suggested legislation was supported in the past by today's opposition, no one supported *all of it* together.
Thank you for a very informative debate
41:00 Roznai is spot on.
👏
11:30 Simcha Rochman - "There is no other court that can challenge govt (legislation) decisions without the need for standing"
Yes, there are other supreme courts that have the power to initiate review proceedings on their own. For example, the Constitutional Court of Germany (Bundesverfassungsgericht) has the power to review the constitutionality of laws on its own initiative, without waiting for a specific case to be brought before it. This power is derived from the German Constitution, which gives the court the authority to ensure that the fundamental rights enshrined in the constitution are protected.
Similarly, the Constitutional Court of Turkey (Anayasa Mahkemesi) has the power to initiate review proceedings on its own initiative, as well as the power to review the constitutionality of laws that are passed by the Turkish parliament. This power is also derived from the Turkish Constitution, which establishes the court as the highest authority on matters of constitutional law.
So this isn't quite true and it's important to keep perspective. Initiating constitutional review without standing isn't universally practiced but that doesn't make it unique to Israel.
Israel should never take an example from Germany and Turkey is a joke where Erdogan has full control of the judiciary with his appointments so no judge will ever dare to challenge laws that Erdogan supports.
US, UK, Canada, Australia, France, Italy, Spain, and others are many more countries where the court cannot or is very restricted in what it can do with regard to elected representatives passed laws.
7:55 The legislator actually gave power to the court, when it legislated that no law shall contradict the Basic Law: Human Dignitiy and Freedom. So when a law contradicts it, it must be cancelled, and the only authority who can decide if a law applies, is the judiciary.
As a Canadian, it puzzles me that you were unable to find an Israeli to argue against an elected Israeli MK. What right does any American, Jew or not, have to go on about Israeli politics - other than the usual American arrogance that makes them imagine that they know more than others and deserve to spout about a country of which they do not seem to be a citizen. And BTW what real moderator argues with a speaker?
Yaniv Roznai is Israeli. Not sure who you are referring to here. But, as an aside, I think discounting the opinion of foreign individuals (let alone experts) on the basis of their nationality is an incredibly dumb position to take. To discredit any idea or position on any basis other than its merits is merely an intellectually dishonest attempt at insulating one’s own position from criticism. Why is a criticism acceptable if it comes from the mouth of an Israeli but immediately invalidated if it were to come from an American? We live in the age of the internet, my friend. Knowledge is no longer tethered to locale.
9:30 When MKs assisted terrorists, they were indicted or fled the country.
49:42 "I have not authorized Simcha Rothman" But Professor Roznai isn't the only citizen of Israel. MK Rothman was authorized by the representatives of half the Israeli population.
49:52 "fundamental pillars" But who determines these fundamental pillars? Not the Supreme Court, whose values inevitably reflect those of the narrow demographic from which they are drawn -- Jewish, Ashkenazi, secular, progressive, politically left-wing? Those fundamental pillars must also come from and be acceptable to the overwhelming majority of Israelis.
54:45 This emphasizes MK Rothman's point; the Basic Law was amended based on public pressure.
Admittedly, Basic Laws must have some additional proceedings around them if they are to be viewed as fundamental. But that discussion can only happen without the stifling control the Supreme Court currently has on the Knesset.
9:00 This is a really amazing clain. That the rising housing prices are to blame on the court, and not on the impotence of the right-wing governments. I have yet to see the reasoning for this ridiculus claim.
Israel have no constitution... That is why juridical power is to strong. Constitution should include balance of power and law makers should be free to make new laws and regulations without interference of juridical system that should execute laws and do not create them. Supreme court's if given to much power becoming to be real governors while politically democratically elected law makers are under supreme court total control. This is juridical authoritarian political system not a democratic anymore. Unless judges are elected by citizens of that country in general election. Judicial supremacy is in deed regime that is not democratic. It is totalitarian power held by a few judges. There is a strong bias coming from those judges personal political ideological believes. It is extremely dangerous.
If governments can pass laws with no judicial interference whatsoever (as will result from the "reforms") then there is no rule of law. There is authoritarian mob rule over everyone else. The fact that Israel has no formal constitution and no other checks and balances means that the supreme court is the only body able to ensure liberal democracy
The argument that judges should be elected in general elections is problematic. Elections can be influenced by political ideologies, campaign donations, and other factors that may compromise the impartiality of judges. Appointing judges based on their qualifications and experience, as is done in many democratic countries, helps ensure that judges are independent and impartial in their decision-making.
The suggestion that the Supreme Court is becoming a "real governor" and that democratically elected lawmakers are under its total control is simply not accurate. The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law and ensure that the actions of the government are in accordance with the law. While the Supreme Court does have the power to strike down laws that are deemed unconstitutional, this does not give them total control over the legislature. Rather, it serves as a necessary check on the potential abuses of power by other branches of government.
Creating a constitution is the best solution to this problem and can provide a framework for balancing the powers of different branches of power and preventing a crisis, while appointing judges based on qualifications and experience helps ensure that they remain independent and impartial. The Supreme Court serves as a necessary check on the government and helps maintain the balance of power in a democratic system.
Israel HAD free economy. until these semi fascists slithered back into power. Bibi was not the only one securing the growth during 'his' previous cadences, and mind you the marks he set were not even matched
Simcha Rochman at 26:40 "Getting a coalition is very very hard because you have to defend minority rights"
If you're interested in defense of minority rights why are you so hellbent on stripping power from one of the only institutions that has traditionally defended them?
From 1992 the Israeli Supreme Court struck down 22 laws on the basis of their violating "Human Rights and Dignity" and the task of preserving those rights and dignities was mandated for the court by the Knesset in 1992.
The common refrain from critics is that the courts behavior in these matters constitutes "judicial activism" because there are no litigants to bring forth actual standing.
But let's consider the cases it reviews.
Of the 22 laws the Knesset overturned on this basis (out of the 4000 laws it did not overturn in this period from 1992 to 2023) here are some good examples:
In 2004, the Supreme Court struck down a law that authorized the use of "moderate physical pressure" in interrogations of security detainees. The court ruled that the law violated the principle of human dignity.
In 2012, the Supreme Court struck down a law that allowed for the detention of illegal immigrants for up to three years without trial. The court ruled that the law violated the principle of human dignity and the right to liberty.
In 2016, the Supreme Court struck down a law that required the government to detain asylum seekers in a special detention center for at least one year. The court ruled that the law violated the principle of human dignity and the right to liberty.
In 1999, the Supreme Court struck down a law that allowed for the administrative detention of Israeli citizens suspected of security offenses for up to six months without trial. The court ruled that the law violated the right to due process and the right to liberty enshrined in the Basic Law.
In 2006, the Supreme Court struck down a law that allowed for the detention of Palestinian family members of suspects for the purpose of exerting pressure on the suspects to turn themselves in. The court ruled that the law violated the principle of human dignity.
In 2011, the Supreme Court struck down a law that allowed for the detention of asylum seekers who entered Israel without proper documentation for up to three years without trial. The court ruled that the law violated the principle of human dignity and the right to liberty.
In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down a law that allowed for the detention of African asylum seekers for an extended period of time without trial. The court ruled that the law violated the principle of human dignity and the right to liberty.
There are many many more such cases but amongst many of them a common factor is that is that people being illegally detained often lack the means and wherewithal for legal recourse.
Israel is a better country for having democratically endowed it's court with this power and the people who are trying to strip the court of this power are interested in reforms that allow for indefinite detention, annexation, racist laws and torture.
These are just some of the menu options that Netanyahu is trying to open up for his coalition.
I’ve been trying to find where I can see what things the court has ruled on. Can you give me a link or source? Not challenging you. Just trying to find it for my own understanding. I keep hearing all these people say how authoritarian and activist this court is. But when I ask for proof I never get a word except the examples you’ve given here.
Mr Rothman, please dont try to make cherry-picked comparisons to Sweden, who has one of the worlds strongest democratic constitutuons and systems to protect it, while Israel has basically nothing to protect its nation and against un-democratic changes exept the Supreme court.
If You want to change a constitutional law in Sweden this is the procedure :
First of all the ruling party has to precent the suggestion in parliment. and to win the vote in the parliment.
Then it has to be elections before the suggestion can be presented in parliment again for the second vote.
12:00 Rotman keeps saying "like no other country in the world", while some elements do exist in some countries in the world. Besides, if a legal element is unique, it doesn't make it wrong. It's natural that countries adapt their laws to their own needs.
8:40 The court blocks illegal actions against terror
11:00 Rotmat repeats the lie that the judges appoint themselves. The truth is both politicians and judges can veto a candidate, so both sides have to agree on candidates.
my impression is that the judiciary in Israel that really needs reform, if not full disbandment, if the religious one. the one that doesn't let people marry, forcing many to go register marriages in like Cyprus and the like, doesn't let people convert, doesn't let people be buried next to their brothers in arms, the ones that somehow think they are the only legit entity in Jewish religion--those are the ones needing kick in the tuches
26:45 or so... "In the US, of you are a Rebublican in New York or a Democrat in Alabama, please don't go to vote because your vote just won't count". Hmmm. Ya never know. Just because one is in a blue (or red) state doesn't mean that everyone in the state votes accordingly.
From the moment "Yaniv Roznai" presented his view, "Simcha Rothman" was occupied with an important tweet, message, ... . No interest at all in Yaniv's approach/view at all. It was pure arrogance with a silent message in one word "Power".
In context of upcoming "Pesach" Who is Simcha Rothman ??? .... "the wise, the wicked , the simple or the one who can't ask"?
My approach is "the one who can't listen also can't ask".
right, you smith the iron while its hot, start the most controversial piece of your agenda first, because it guarantees you powergrab, provoke unrest--and then put the blame on the opposition.
Rotman took his pills finally? He is uncharacteristically calm.
😂
12:30 Rotman actually suggests that the court will not criticize the parliament, and every branch live in its own silo. That's not how democracies work.
44:20 Rotman is lying again. Forrer suggested one element, not the entire set of laws Rotman is promoting.
striking down 5 laws out of 22 that were against 'illegal infiltrators'? that's the Arab folk who lived in the Israeli territory before establishment of the State, if i get it right, isn't that?
No, it was about Africans who illegally entered into Israel.
@@Rojomanzana438 don't many of them claim Jewish heritage and at least some have been recognized as such?
@@spikeyapples No. You are confusing them with the Ethiopians, who immigrate legally under the Law of Return.
@@amirban I don't
I know there are West Africans, even some Caribbean folk and people from like US "True Israelites" whose status has been disputed. And in any case I don't see this as a reason to undermine judicial independence, if anything these people can contribute to balancing out Arab and Muslim populations demographically
@@spikeyapples No those people haven't come to Israel in any significant numbers. The people Rothman talks about are from east Africa, mostly Sudan and Eritrea, and fled due to Humanitarian reasons (The right claim sometimes: to seek jobs, and their come just coincided with the same Humanitarian crises, I assume)
in my opinion any law without checks is a no for me cos in my country the politicians act like mafias.
In a democracy you always have the checks & balances against them of being able to vote them out if they end up doing something that's the opposite of what they campaigned on and do it without public support.
@@davidconsumerofmath nah..waiting for an election is not checks and balances, that is just voting out incompetent politicians
Rotman is lier